out that Decree 1320, issued [July 13, 1998] to regulate the matter of prior consultation, was done “without any prior consultation, in flagrant violation of ILO Convention 169 and in violation of the indigenous peoples’ constitutional rights.” 17. They also report that they applied to INCORA (Instituto Colombiano de la Reforma Agraria) [Colombian Institute of Agrarian Reform] for creation of a “single reservation,” which was legally established under Resolution 56 of August 6, 1999. However, they contend that the expansion was not configured to conform to the U’wa people’s requests, which were based on their ancestral territory; instead, the “single reservation” was configured to suit oil exploration interests, allowing oil drilling activity within meters of the indigenous communities. They add that 14 years after approval of the resolution, the State has still not fully secured the U’wa territory against third party acts and claims and not yet handed over all titles to the U’wa people. 18. Here the petitioners make general reference to acts of violence allegedly committed against members of the U’wa people and for which no one was ever made to answer. They make specific mention of the “death of 3 United States citizens who were activists in the cause of indigenous peoples’ rights (Terence Freitas, Ingrid Washinawatock, Lahe'ena'e Gay, 1999); the death of two U’wa children on February 11, 2000; the death of Siwakubo Bocota and Rukuiso Bocata, two indigenous persons killed by military forces in Saravena, Arauca, on January 5, 2004; injuries sustained by Alexis Celis Valencia on October 24, 2005, inflicted by military forces guarding the oil infrastructure, among others.” They also state that, using “violence” and “without due process”, on January 25 and 27, 2000 anti-riot police conducted evictions in the area where the Gibraltar 1 well was being drilled. They maintain that on January 27, 2000, at a place known as “Las Canoas crossing […] one Kenowia Bócota child (age 4) and one Sikuani child drowned.” 19. Based on the foregoing, the petitioners are alleging violation of the U’wa people’s right to ethnic and cultural integrity, their right to participation and consultation, and their right to an adequate and effective recourse. They contend that the facts denounced constitute a violation of Articles 1(1), 24 and 25 of the American Convention and Article XIII of the American Declaration. They further argue that based on Article 29 of the American Convention, the latter should be interpreted taking into account the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and ILO Convention 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribunal Peoples in Independent Countries, both of which Colombia has ratified, as well as any Colombian laws containing provisions that protect indigenous peoples’ rights as recognized in the Constitution and Law 99 of 1993. B. The State 20. Concerning the facts denounced, the State points out that under the terms of a contract with Ecopetrol, in 1992 Occidental of Colombia filed an application with Inderena seeking to obtain an environmental license in order to proceed with seismic explorations in the Samoré block. It reports that this petroleum block included the municipalities of Saravena, Tame and Fortul in the department of Arauca; the municipality of Cubará in the department of Boyacá and the municipality of Toledo in the department of Norte de Santander. It states that “some of the U’wa people’s ancestral territories were inside the perimeter of this petroleum block.” It argues that a number of studies were conducted that served as the basis for the technical findings that corroborated the project’s viability. Like the petitioners, the State points out that on January 10 and 11, 1995, representatives of the Administration, the Ministries of Mines and Energy and of the Environment, ECOPETROL and Occidental Corporation met with 40 members of the U’wa people. It points out that the Ministry of the Environment “assumed that the meetings in question constituted measures taken to comply with the prior consultation requirement” and proceeded to issue Resolution No. 110 of February 3, 1996, granting the environmental license. 21. The State also makes reference to the petition seeking a constitutional writ of protection of human rights [acción de tutela] and the appeal for nullification, which the Ombudsperson filed on August 29, 1995 in representation of the U’wa people. The State’s description of both proceedings is similar to that of the petitioners. It points out that on the petition for a constitutional writ of protection of human rights [acción de tutela], the Constitutional Court decided to order temporary protection of the U’wa people’s rights and ordered the State to conduct the prior consultation. It adds that the Constitutional Court, however, made enforcement 4